Talk:Filton Abbey Wood railway station/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I'll start this review this afternoon. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool cool cool. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• A few preliminaries: the images, their licenses, and their captions look fine. References look legit too, at first glance. No edit wars or obvious POV. Now, on to a closer read... --Coemgenus (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Over the decade 2002–2012, passenger numbers at Filton Abbey Wood almost doubled, from 0.395 million to 0.771 million" This might be better expressed as ..."from 395,000 to 771,000", since that's how people usually say numbers in that range.

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "A single direct service from London Paddington calls at Filton Abbey Wood in the morning, continuing to Swansea, but there are no direct services to London." You can get a train there directly from London, but can't return directly to London? Is that right, or am I reading this wrong?

  No, you're reading that correctly. It's one of those oddities of the timetables. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "4 miles 53 chains (7.5 km) from Bristol Temple Meads" Do people usually speak of miles and chains in Britain? It sounds weird to me, but it could be a difference in dialect (in the United States, we typically measure in miles and feet).

The railways of Britain are surveyed in miles and chains, and these distances are printed in several WP:RSs such as

• Yonge, John; Padgett, David (2010) [1989]. Bridge, Mike (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 3: Western (5th ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. ISBN 978-0-9549866-6-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

They are painted on bridges, tunnel mouths and other structures. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A regional difference, then. No problem. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The station continued in use until 1 July 1903, when it was closed and replaced by a new station further north." How much further north? Never mind, I see this is answered in the next section. Might be useful to mention the distance when you first mention the new station, though.

   Done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• That long chart of the historical railways that used the station is nice; I'd make it collapsed, though. It interrupts the flow of the text.

  Assuming that you mean the three boxes headed "Preceding station Historical railways Following station" - those are known as "routeboxes", and they are never collapsed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  The Filton Junction one is particularly long due to the awkwardness of the layout - Henbury, London and Wales lines all feed in to Filton, but out the other end there's only one line, and that had the discourtesy of changing next station a lot. So there is redundancy, but it's not possible to address it any other way I think. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  Also there's the problem of the junction, several miles west, of the South Wales Main Line and Cross Country Route - until Bristol Parkway was built, they could both claim "next" stations. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if that's the standard for train station articles, then I guess you should keep it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The remains of Filton Junction can still be seen from passing trains, and the two western platforms are still in situ..." I'd say "still exist" instead of "are still in situ" More common language, easier for the average reader to grasp.

  I think in situ sounds and flows better. Perhaps there's some third option. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  Since it means "in place", maybe that would work? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do people commonly consider the second and third stations the same? I can see why you'd address them in the same article, but they are ¼ mile apart.

  Honestly that's a good question. I decided to combine them because they are effectively the same station, one replacing another. In principle you could write three different articles, but that seemed to be overkill, when frankly someone who wants to know the history of one will likely be interested in the history of all three. Also the other names redirected to this page to begin with. I'd welcome Redrose or other WT:UKRAIL people to comment on that aspect. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  It's fine with me as far as this GA review goes, just seemed like a question that might come up. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's all for now. I'll wait for your answers on these before taking a second pass at it. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Changes look good, and I didn't see anything else worth mentioning on a second reading. Passed! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks very much! -mattbuck (Talk) 09:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)